↓ Skip to main content

The detection of 3 ambiguous type 2 vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPV2s) in Uganda

Overview of attention for article published in Virology Journal, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The detection of 3 ambiguous type 2 vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPV2s) in Uganda
Published in
Virology Journal, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12985-018-0990-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary Bridget Nanteza, Barnabas Bakamutumaho, Annet Kisakye, Prossy Namuwulya, Henry Bukenya, Edson Katushabe, Josephine Bwogi, Charles Rutebarika Byabamazima, Raffaella Williams, Nicksy Gumede

Abstract

The Oral Polio Vaccine (OPV or Sabin) is genetically unstable and may mutate to form vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPVs). In 2014, two VDPVs type 2 were identified during routine surveillance of acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) cases. Consequently, a retrospective VDPV survey was conducted to ensure that there was no circulating VDPV in the country. All Sabin poliovirus isolates identified in Uganda 6 months before and 6 months after were re-screened; Sabin 1 and 3 polioviruses were re-screened for Sabin 2 and Sabin 2 polioviruses were re-screened for VDPVs type 2. The Poliovirus rRT-PCR ITD/VDPV 4.0 assay and sequencing were used respectively. The first two VDPVs type2 were identified in Eastern Uganda and the third was identified during the survey from South-western Uganda. These regions had low OPV coverage and poor AFP surveillance indicators. The retrospective VDPV survey was a useful strategy to screen for VDPVs more exhaustively. Supplementary surveillance methods need to be encouraged.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Master 4 13%
Other 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 12 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 12 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2018.
All research outputs
#20,571,735
of 25,282,542 outputs
Outputs from Virology Journal
#2,754
of 3,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#260,650
of 332,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virology Journal
#42
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,282,542 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,381 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.7. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,927 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.